The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-02-09
THE FISHERIES TROUBLE.
Substance of the Correspondents BetweeL
England and the United States.

last, and up to the present time between the
Department of State and the government Of
Great Britain. The correspondence begins with
q letter from Secretary Bayard to Minister West,
dated Dec. II. 1886, saying he had instructed the
United States minister at London to make rep
resentation of the regrettable occurrences attend
ing the lowering of the flag of the United States
on the Marion Grimes whilst under detention by
the custom house at Shelburne, N. s..
Oct. II. This is followed by report
from Governor general Lansdowne, datad
Nov. 18, 1886. containingl the siapproval al
the Privy Council upon the action of the collector
in relating to the seizure of the Everett Steel
Lord Lansdowne sends to Mr.. Stanhope copy
of an approved minute of the Privy Council OF
Canada, in the case of the United States fishing
vessel Crittenden, which grew out of an alleged
denial of rights guaranteed by the convention OF
1918, by the customs officer at Sheep creek,
in the straits of Canso, N. S. This customs
officer claimed the captain of the Crttsnden vio-
lated laws by neglectng TO enter his vessel, aud
in landing aud shipping man,
The report states that the remark made by
the customs officer, that ne would seize the
vessel" had reference solely to the captaip's VIC
lation of the customs regulation. and, 1t is sub
mtted, could not be construed into denial Of
retary Bayard asks investigation into
the charge that the schooner Sarah a. Prior was
prevented by the Canadian revenue cutter from
entering the port of Macpeque, ?. E. l.. to re-
cover lost SEINE Minister West submits TO
Secretary Bayard a report, dated Jan. %. by tho
Minister of Justice of the Dominion of Canada,
upon the seizure of the American fishing vessel
David J. Adams. Mr.. West, on Jan. % last
sent to MIR. Bayard communication from Gov
ernor general Lansdowne in regard to the cases
&C ha Everett Steel and Pearl Nielsen, detained
a. SnslbEsn for COR c'Aees with the
toms regulations of re Dominion. Lord LaaS-
downe says thafin the case Of the Steel the 1stay
made no exDianat3o when his vessel was eeizedr
and that she released soon as be dsd
so. In the case of tie Nelson. the crew landed
before the master reported at the custom house
"a thing which would. if allowed, admit of
smuggling. Nevertheless. when the master said
it was an nadverrence his vessel was released
and his fine remitted. The communication em-
phasiZes the statement that the British goverr-
ment does not desire 20 curtai any OF the privi-
leges enjoyed by United States fishermen IN
Canadian waters, but it observes that there
were just grounds for the action taken in respect
| to the Nelson and Steel On Nov 30 the Earl
| of Iddesleigh wrote to Minister Phelps, saying
Great Brisain was desirous of just settlement
of the fisheries question. The Earl was sorry
| not to discover spirit of mutual concession on
the part of the United States, and suggested the
/ submission of details to commission.
/ On Dec. l6 Lord Iddesleigh, in a communica-
ton TO Minister Phelps. transmits the apology
/ of the Canadian government for having hauled
down the flag Of the Marion Grimes. Alluding
to the seizure of the Everett Steel. Lord Iddes-
/ leigh says Her Maiestyis government greatly
/ regret that the incidents alluded to occurred.
| and they can only renew the assurances conveyed
to you in my noto of the Both ultimo, that whilst
| firmly resolved to uphold the Cndoubted treaty
rights Of her Majesty's North American sub
iects in regard to the fisheries,
undoubted rights of the United States
! fishermen TO obtain shelter in Canadian ports
under such restrictions as may be necessary TO
prevent their abusing the privileges reserved to
/ them by tho treaty" He continues by saying
| that Mr.. Bayard raises point which he, the
writer, thought was settled by the two govern
ments in 1915, to-wit: That the right to the COM
| mon enjoy ment of the fisheries by Great Britain
| and the United States was recognized by the
| treaty of l7S3 although the exercise of that
/ right was made subject to certain restrictions
| His lordship observes that the views of Great
Britain have not modified in any way" on the
| subject since 1915.
On JAM &c, Minister Phelps writes to Lord
Salisbury as follows: 1T seems now very im-
| portant that, before the commencement Of an
] other fishing season. a distinct understanding
should be reached between the United States
| government and that of her Majesty relative to
| the course to be pursued By the Canadian au-
] thorties toward American vessels. 1t IS not
/ without surprise that l have read Lord Iddes-
| leigh's remark in a note above mentioned refer
| ring to the treaty of 1918. that her Majesty's
| government have not, as yet. been informed in
what respect the construction placed upon that in
strument by the government of the United States
differs from their own. Had his lordshp Pc
rused more attentively my note to his predeces-
sor in Office, Lord Rosebery, under date Of Juna
2. 1856. to which reference was made in my note
to Lord Iddesleigh of September. 1856 think
he could not have failed to apprehend distinctly
| the construction of that treaty for which the
| government of the United States contended. and
the reasons and arguments upon which it is
founded. l. have again to respectfully refer your
ND fn my
| June 2, 1856, for very full, and, / hope, clear
exposition of the ground taken by the
| United States government on that point. II is
| unnecessary to repeat it, and | unable to
add to IT, 1t is true, beyond question,
tha. when private vessel is seized for an
alleged lnfracton of the laws of the country in
which the seizure takes place, and the fact OF
the infracton and the exact legal construction
| of the local statutes claimed to be transgressed
is not disputed and in process of determination
by the proper tribunal, the government to which
the vessel belongs will not Interfere In
advance OF such determination and before
acquiring information which IL depends; and
especially when it is not yet informed whether
the conduct of the officers making the seizure
Will not be repudiated by the government under
which he acts; so that interference will not be
necessary. But in the present case the
facts constituting the alleged infraction by the
vessels are not in dispute except in circumstances
arising from alleged aggravations not material
to the validity Of the seizure. Tho original
ground of the seizure the purchase by the
master Of the vessel of small quantity oi
bait from the inhabitants of Nova Scotia, to
be used IN fishing This purchase Is
no denied by the owners of the vessel. The
United States government insist-frst that such
an act is not 10 violation of the treaty OF 1918
and. second. that no then existing statute IN
Great Britain or Canada authorized any proceed
ngs against the vessel for such an act, even it i
could be regarded as in violation OF the terms o.
the treaty. And no such statute has been al
yet produced. In response to the charge brough
against the Adams. and upon which many Other
vessels have been seized, that OF technical vio
ation of the customs act in omitting to repor
to the custom house. though having no business
at the portland in some instances wners
the vessel seized was not within several miles
of the port-the United States government
claim, whilst not admitting that the omission t.